Kiddushin 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught in a baraita:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “After he has been sold, redemption shall be his. One of his brothers shall redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son.” “

And if he is not redeemed by these, he shall go free in the Jubilee year.”

And we learned in a baraita: “

And if he is not redeemed by these”—

Rabbi says:

This verse teaches us that only

by these,

through redemption by relatives,

is he redeemed.

And he is not redeemed

by being released

by

the completion of

six

years.

And why would I have thought that he goes free after six years?

Because

I

would

be able

to say:

Is it not an a fortiori inference

that this should be learned by a kal va-chomer from a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite:

And if one who is not redeemed by “

these,”

that is, a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite, cannot be released through his relatives’ redeeming him, unless he himself redeems himself, and nevertheless he

is redeemed after six years,

If so,

this one,

the Hebrew slave sold to a gentile,

who is redeemed by “

these,”

through redemption by relatives, it follows that the Torah granted him a greater form of release than one sold to an Israelite. And

is it not an inference

that he too

is redeemed after six years,

since this follows by a kal va-chomer from one sold to an Israelite?!

The verse therefore states,

and for this reason it says:

“by these,”

to teach that specifically

by these is he redeemed, but he is not redeemed after six years.

This concludes Rabbi’s statement.

It is apparent from Rabbi’s words that one sold to an Israelite is not released through redemption by his relatives.

For Rabbi said: “And if one who is not redeemed by these”—that is, one sold to an Israelite.

The Gemara proves from here that Rabbi does not derive “hired man, hired man” by means of a gezeira shava:

And if it enters your mind that he derives “hired man, hired man,”

if it enters your mind that Rabbi derives “hired man, hired man” by means of a gezeira shava, this is difficult:

Why does he say—

why did Rabbi say:

“And if one who is not redeemed by these”?

That is, one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives.

Let us derive

through a gezeira shava

“hired man, hired man”

that even one sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives!

For just as we learn that one who sells himself to an Israelite is subject to the same law as one whom the court sold through the gezeira shava “hired man, hired man,” so it would be appropriate to learn the law of one sold to an Israelite from one sold to a gentile through the gezeira shava.

For the term “hired man” is also stated concerning one sold to a gentile: “Like a hired man year by year shall he be with him.”

Rather, necessarily, Rabbi does not derive “hired man, hired man” through a gezeira shava. Therefore, one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives, because the Torah did not state the law of relatives’ redemption concerning him himself; this cannot be learned through a gezeira shava. And we reject this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In fact,

even Rabbi

does derive

the expression

“hired man, hired man”

by means of a gezeira shava.

But here it is different,

and the law of relatives’ redemption is different,

for the verse says

concerning one sold to a gentile: “Or his uncle shall redeem him.”

The verse excludes: “

He shall redeem him”—the relative—only

for

a

Hebrew slave

of this kind,

who was sold to a gentile,

but not

for another

Hebrew slave,

who was sold to an Israelite!

This teaches that only one sold to a gentile is redeemed by relatives, but not one sold to an Israelite.

As the Gemara is discussing the baraita that cites Rabbi’s statement, it continues to discuss the matter.

We learned in a baraita: “And if he is not redeemed by these”—Rabbi says: “By these” he, [one sold to a gentile,] is redeemed, but he is not redeemed after six years.

It follows from the baraita that there are those who disagree with Rabbi and maintain that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile goes free after six years.

And we inquire:

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi?

Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva

are the ones, for they expound the word “by these” for a different purpose. The verse does not come to teach that he does not go free after six years, as follows:

As it was taught in a baraita:

It is stated: “And if he

is not redeemed by these.”

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

The word “by these” teaches that specifically

“by these,”

through redemption by relatives, the slave sold to a gentile goes

free.

But if he is redeemed

by another person,

that is, if others redeem him, the slave does not go free, but rather

into servitude;

he becomes enslaved to the one who redeemed him.

Rabbi Akiva says:

On the contrary,

“by these,”

through redemption by relatives, the slave leaves the authority of his gentile master

for servitude,

to become enslaved to his relatives.

Whereas

through

the redemption of

any other person,

the slave goes

free.

The Gemara will explain their disagreement shortly.

In any event, neither Rabbi Yosei HaGelili nor Rabbi Akiva expounded the word “by these” to exclude the possibility that one sold to a gentile goes free after six years. From here it follows that in their opinion one sold to a gentile does go free after six years.

The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva:

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

What is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s reason?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And if he is not redeemed by these, and he shall go free in the Jubilee year.” This is how the verse is to be expounded:

If he is not redeemed by these,

through redemption by relatives,

but

through

the redemption of an

other,

who is not a relative, then—

he shall go free

from that other person

in the Jubilee year.

This implies that he does not leave him before the Jubilee. From here you learn that if another person redeemed him, he becomes enslaved to him.

And Rabbi Akiva

disagrees and

says:

The verse is to be expounded as follows:

If he is not redeemed

by another,

but by these,

by relatives, then—

he shall go free

from the relatives

in the Jubilee year.

This implies that he does not leave them before the Jubilee. From here it follows that if his relatives redeemed him, he becomes enslaved to them.

The Gemara rejects this:

And we raise an objection:

But

surely

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

would object to Rabbi Akiva’s statement:

How is it possible to expound the verse, “And if he is not redeemed ‘but by these’”?

Is

it so?

Is “but by these” written?!

On the contrary, the verse says, “And if he is not redeemed by these”!

Rather, it is unavoidable that this was not Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning.

Rather, they disagree concerning this verse,

and the root of the disagreement between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva is found in another verse:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “Or his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him. Or his hand shall attain sufficient means, and he shall be redeemed.”

This is the explanation of the verse: “

Or

his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him”—

this is redemption by relatives. “

Or

his hand shall attain sufficient means”—

this is self-redemption.

“And he shall be redeemed” —

this is redemption by others.

That is, the verse teaches that even others can redeem the slave, even against the will of the gentile master.

Now, there is no doubt that the slave’s self-redemption results in freedom, and everyone agrees that the redemption written immediately next to it is compared to it. They disagree only as to which redemption is compared to self-redemption:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: “A verse is expounded with reference to what precedes it” -

When a verse is expounded as teaching something about another verse, it is expounded as referring to the verse written before it.

Therefore,

compare redemption by relatives to self-redemption

—compare the law of redemption by relatives to the law of self-redemption, since redemption by relatives is written before self-redemption:

Just as

self-redemption

is

for

freedom—

so too redemption by relatives

is for

freedom.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: “A verse is expounded with reference to what follows it”—

when a verse is expounded as teaching something about another verse, it is expounded as referring to the verse written after it.

Therefore,

compare redemption by others to self-redemption

—compare the law of redemption by others to the law of self-redemption, since redemption by others is stated in the verse after self-redemption:

Just as self-redemption

is for

freedom—

so too redemption by others

is for

freedom.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the disagreement between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva depends on this, then

“by these”—

why do I need it?

Why did they need to expound the verse “by these,” as explained above in the baraita—according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, by these means freedom, whereas through any other person it means servitude; and according to Rabbi Akiva, by these means servitude, whereas through any other person it means freedom?

And we answer:

If not,

if “by these” had not been stated,

I would have thought

that the

verse is expounded with reference both to what precedes it and to what follows it.

One could expound that self-redemption comes to teach both about redemption by relatives, mentioned in the preceding verse, and about redemption by others, mentioned afterward.

And all,

all the redemptions would have the same law, namely, that they are

for freedom,

and not for servitude.

Therefore, the verse needed to say “by these,” to teach that one redemption results in freedom, while another results in servitude.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to which of them results in freedom and which results in servitude.

We challenge the answerer’s statement: According to you, generally a verse is expounded with reference both to what precedes it and to what follows it, whereas here the verse said “by these.” For this reason, the verse is expounded as teaching only about one of them.

But

if so, the original difficulty returns to its place.

The earlier question therefore remains: the words “by these” imply the position of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili—“And if he is not redeemed by these,” by relatives, but by another, then “he shall go free in the Jubilee year,” and not before then.

How, then, did Rabbi Akiva expound the verse “he shall go free in the Jubilee year” as referring to redemption by relatives? Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts what had been self-evident to us until now:

Until now it had been obvious to us that according to everyone, “by these” refers to relatives.

Accordingly, the verse indeed implies the position of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: “If he is not redeemed by these,” by relatives, but by another, then “he shall go free in the Jubilee year,” and not before then.

We therefore challenged Rabbi Akiva’s statement: How can one say that the verse “he shall go free in the Jubilee year” refers to redemption by relatives?

In order to reconcile Rabbi Akiva’s position, the Gemara retracts this understanding:

Rather,

the word “by these” can be interpreted as referring both to relatives and to others, since redemption by others was also mentioned in the passage, as the Gemara stated earlier.

But

they disagree on the basis of reasoning:

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree logically as to which redemption it is more reasonable to understand “by these” as referring to—

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds: It is reasonable

that

redemption by others results in servitude,

as will be explained shortly.

Therefore, one must say that “by these” refers to relatives, and the verse says as follows: If he is not redeemed by relatives but by another, then he goes free in the Jubilee, and not before then.

Why did Rabbi Yosei HaGelili find it reasonable that redemption by others results in servitude?

Because

if you say that it results in freedom, they would refrain from redeeming him and would not redeem him.

For if you say that redemption by others results in freedom, they would refrain from redeeming the slave with their own money, since they would gain nothing from it.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the Torah stated that when others redeem the slave, he becomes enslaved to them, so that they will redeem him from the gentile.

But in the case of relatives, even if the slave would not become enslaved to them, they would redeem him because he is their relative.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: It is reasonable

that

redemption by relatives results in servitude,

as will be explained shortly.

Therefore, one must say that “by these” refers to others, and the verse says as follows: If he is not redeemed by others but by relatives, then he goes free in the Jubilee year, and not before then.

Why did Rabbi Akiva find it reasonable that redemption by relatives results in servitude?

Because

if you say

that redemption by relatives results in freedom, then

every single day he goes and enslaves

himself;

the slave will rely on the fact that his relatives will redeem him, and on that basis he will sell himself to gentiles.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

a beraita

this

that distinguishes between the halakha of redemption by relatives and redemption by others is

the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva.

But the Sages say: In all cases,

whether redemption by relatives or redemption by others, it is

for release.

And so the verse states: “But if he is not redeemed by these,” meaning, whether by relatives or by others, then “he shall go out in the jubilee year,” and not earlier.

But if he is redeemed by relatives or by others, he is released immediately.

And we explain:

Who are the Sages—

who are these Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva?

It is Rabbi. For he derives this phrase “by these” for another exposition.

Rabbi expounded the word “by these” [in the aforementioned beraita] for another exposition [that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile does not go free after six years], and according to his view, “by these” was not stated in order to distinguish between redemption by relatives and redemption by others.

And we raise an objection:

And as for Rabbi, this “

he shall go out in the jubilee year” \-

what does he do with it?

Why did the verse need to state here that the slave goes free from under his master’s authority in the jubilee year? It was already stated earlier in the same passage [Leviticus 25:50]: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser from the year that he was sold to him until the jubilee year.”

And from this verse it can be learned that the slave goes free in the jubilee year! If so, why did the verse repeat this a second time?

And we answer:

It is needed for

that which was taught in a beraita.